Friday, March 31, 2017

A
good starting point when tackling an untreated room is to hang traps
behind each speaker and to the sides of the listening position. If
there's enough space, additional treatment can be added on the ceiling
above the listening position, as well as in the corners, as shown here.

I'm just about to get started on quite a big
project in my new home studio. I'm a bit concerned about the acoustics
of the room, so I've been re-reading Studio SOS from July 2006 where
Paul and Hugh sorted Hilgrove Kenrick out with some great acoustic
trapping, and I'm thinking of making some myself. I just wanted to ask
if you thought it would help in my situation.

My room is 4.6m x 4.1m, with a height of 2.4m. The walls taper in at a
45-degree angle about 30cm below the ceiling. The floor is covered in
thin carpet, and there is one single-glazed window about 2m x 1m in the
front wall. I can record instruments and vocals in the adjoining room if
necessary, to reduce noise from my workstation (an Apple Macbook
running Logic Pro).

But I'm more concerned about playback and EQ. I'm unsure about the
best place to put the workstation, and I'm a bit worried about the
listening environment; I'm not sure whether I'll be able to hear all
frequencies correctly and therefore provide good-quality mixes. Do you
think the traps and foam will help, if positioned in a similar manner to
the article?

Simon Greenwood

Editor In Chief Paul White replies: The traps we
made for Hilgrove would certainly work in your room, and if you're
willing to get your hands dirty with the manufacturing process, I'd
start by making one for each side of the listening position and another
pair to situate behind the speakers. As a starting point, try setting
your speakers up around 18 inches from the wall and make sure they're
angled towards your head, with the minimum of reflecting surfaces
between you and them.

Your room's dimensions are a bit closer to a square than I'd like,
but at least it is large enough that you won't need to sit too close to
the centre, which is where the bass becomes most unpredictable. If you
have space, add further traps in the corners of the room, again as we
did in Hilgrove's studio. Alternatively you could put them between the
wall and ceiling on the walls that don't have angled sections. Logic's Test Oscillator (above) can be assigned as a source on an
instrument track, then sequenced to play sine tones at semitone
intervals, using the Matrix Editor, as shown below.

I wouldn't recommend using EQ to try to fix the monitoring, as it is
rarely very successful. Instead, use your ears (and some test tones) to
analyse the best placement for your speakers. This is a fairly laborious
task, but one that's certainly worth the effort. Here's what to do.

Set up ascending sine-wave tones in semitone steps, starting from around 30Hz. As you have Logic Pro, you could use Test Oscillator, which is listed as a source on an instrument track, to generate these steps. Alternatively, you could open an instance of EXS24, which has a sine-wave tone as its default sound. You could, of course, use ES2
on an instrument track, and set up a sine wave on one of the
oscillators (making sure the other two oscillators are switched off),
but you must be careful to check that all modulations, LFOs, envelopes
and, most importantly, velocity sensitivity controls are having no
affect on the output.

All three of these options give you the flexibility to trigger the
tones using a MIDI controller keyboard, enabling you to find out where
the troublesome frequencies are at the point in the room where you play
the keyboard. But sequencing a stepped sweep (as shown in the
screenshot, bottom left) is a better option, as it allows you to listen
to other parts of your room. When programming the steps, it's important
to check that MIDI velocities are the same, and that notes don't overlap
(if using ES2, set your sine-wave generator to 'mono' mode).

Once you've set up the sequence and ensured that there are no programmed
jumps in volume, listen for excessively loud or quiet notes around the
room. Moving your speakers further from or closer to the walls will
change this, so look for the spot that gives the smoothest response. A
further piece of acoustic foam on the ceiling directly above your knees
in your normal monitoring position will help kill reflections from that
source.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

My friend has just built a control room at the rear
of his house, and he would like to set up a networked remote
workstation in a room at the front of his house, which he is using as a
recording space. We want the computer in the front room (which will be
connected to a multi-channel audio interface) to transmit live audio
inputs via LAN into the host computer, which is running Cubase
in the control room. I realise that we could route the inputs along
analogue cables to the host PC, but in this case we would like to be
able to run just one Cat 5 network cable. I'm envisaging a system where a
VST plug-in, running on the host PC, shows the audio signals being
transmitted by the remote PC, in a similar fashion to FX Teleport. Is this possible?

Sean Hughes

PC music specialist Martin Walker replies: If
you've already got a spare PC and soundcard available, I can see why
this idea occurred to you. One possible solution that would fit the bill
is the Digital Musician Net software (www.digitalmusician.net),
a free VST 2.0 plug-in that enables musicians in different locations
around the world to collaborate 'live', all running their own computers
and audio interfaces. Usually you would do this via an ADSL Internet
connection, but I dare say you could also adapt it to a local network.

However, I can't help thinking that this approach is using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut. While my August 2005 PC Musician feature on
Spreading Your Music Across Networked Computers (available on-line at www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug05/articles/pcmusician.htm) covered using a second PC as a simple stand-alone synth, or running software such as MIDIoverLAN, Steinberg's VST System Link and FX Teleport,
none of these alternatives supports the running of live inputs on a
remote PC. And there's a very simple reason for this: the last thing
most musicians would want in a 'live room' is a noisy computer, and many
already go to great lengths to get their computer out of the control
room too!There
are a number of ways to transfer audio from one room to another. One is
to use a computer in each room and a networked audio transfer
application, as illustrated on the left. However, this process will
involve significant latency issues that can prove particularly tricky to
resolve. The most effective alternative is to remove the second
computer and use an audio multicore to connect the two rooms, as shown
on the right. With this option, there are no latency issues encountered
in the transfer of audio between the recording space and the control
room.

Another problem when connecting live inputs via a remote PC would be additional latency. When you use a utility like FX Teleport
to add the processing power of a second PC to the pool, the latency of
its remote plug-ins is automatically compensated for while mixing, just
like those on the master PC. However, your proposed live inputs would be
delayed by the latency of the network, as well as the audio interface
input buffers, and would all end up behind those on the master PC. If
the musicians wanted to monitor existing tracks being played back on the
master PC, these would also be delayed on their trip back to the live
room via the network. While you could, no doubt, line up the tracks
afterwards, I suspect you'd find it a very frustrating experience.

One alternative approach that also uses a single digital cable would
be to install a Firewire or USB 2.0 audio interface in the recording
space, connected to the host PC via a single long Firewire or USB cable.
Many manufacturers offer software drivers that support three or four of
their interfaces simultaneously, so with a suitably compatible audio
interface in each room you could end up with a greater amount of inputs
and outputs. These would, of course, be locked to sample-accuracy, there
would be a complete absence of computer noise in your live room, and
you'd be able to route headphone mixes to the extra interface's outputs
for monitoring. One thing to consider with this option is the length of
the cable you use. The official limits for both USB and Firewire cable
lengths is around five metres, but you might get away with longer than
this (there are plenty of companies advertising Firewire cables up to
120 feet if you look on-line); with a repeater box, to clean up and
boost the signal, you could run much longer cables.

However, there's an even easier alternative, which you actually
mentioned in your query: connecting the live room sources to unused
inputs on the control room PC's audio interface via analogue cables. You
dismissed this because you didn't want to run multiple cables, but you
don't have to; the vast majority of recording studios use a single
multi-core 'snake' cable containing multiple, balanced audio cores,
terminated in a robust breakout box at the live end, and a set of XLR
plugs at the other.

You can buy these in many formats ranging from two-way to 32-way and
beyond, and despite their increased diameter over a single Cat 5 cable I
can't help thinking this would be the best solution, especially as a
30-metre, 12-way snake would only cost around £100, and you could use a
few cores to send monitor outputs to the live room.

Even physical cleanliness can make more of a difference to
performance than many musicians realise. Keeping your PC clean on the
inside will help it run cooler and reduce acoustic noise, by giving the
cooling fans less work to do, and may even prevent long-term crashes.
Just follow these tips to optimise your computer so that it never grinds
to a halt and runs cooler and more reliably than ever before.

Some musicians seem to take a perverse delight in never cleaning
their computers, but keeping your PC physically clean can have more
significant health benefits than many people realise. Studies have found
that a PC keyboard can end up contaminated with 400 times more germs
than the average toilet seat. A primary cause of this shocking health
risk is that so many of us eat near our computers, with the result that
germs and bacteria grow between and underneath the keys, as they do on
any other surface that's regularly handled, including your mouse,
telephone, and so on. This can result in ear, nose and eye infections,
and I've seen it estimated that up to 60 percent of time off work may be
caused by contracting germs from dirty office equipment. The most
germ-ridden item in many offices is the printer button, so it's fair to
assume that studio germs will also gather on the various sliders and
rotary knobs of our mixers and synths. If you run a commercial studio
the health issues resulting from lots of clients handling your computer
and audio gear may be even worse (especially since some people don't
seem to wash their hands after visiting the bathroom!).

For general cleaning of PC casework, a simple rub-down with a cloth
dampened with washing-up liquid and water, followed by a quick polish
with a dry cloth, is often sufficient and won't leave smears like some
general-purpose cleaning products. For more details, have a look at our
feature on 'Refurbishing Your Old Equipment' in SOS December 2006 (www.soundonsound.com/sos/dec06/articles/cosmeticsurgery.htm).Don't
underestimate the health benefits of keeping your PC clean. With a
range of dedicated products like these you can not only sharpen your
monitor images and give your gear a new sparkle, but also deal with
potentially hazardous bacteria.

Other PC-related items that will probably benefit from a routine
clean include floppy drives (with a dedicated cleaner disk) and CD/DVD
optical drives, especially if you're experiencing unreadable disks or
audio stutter. In the case of the latter, cleaning the laser lens
assembly may help. You can do this using a dedicated lens-cleaner CD,
but sometimes a better long-term solution is to open up the drive and
clean the lens manually, using a cotton bud and isopropyl alcohol (SOS reader and studio owner Tim Rainey has a helpful guide to the latter on his web site at www.kymatasound.com/Optical_drive_fix.htm).

Your computer and other often-handled items in your studio will
generally benefit from dedicated cleaning products that not only avoid
smearing but also have anti-static and anti-bacterial properties. Most
PC component retailers stock some, but one range that particularly
caught my eye is from Durable (www.durable-cleaning.co.uk),
especially as they promote awareness of health issues with their
'Computer Cleaning Week' (17th to 22nd September), which also has its
own dedicated web site (www.computercleaningweek.com).

The Durable product range includes Superclean sachets and
anti-bacterial wipes that are suitable for PC and music keyboards, mice,
telephones, faders and knobs, plus Screenclean, for streak-free
cleaning of all types of monitor screen and other glass surfaces on
scanners and photocopiers. Meanwhile, to eject crumbs and other detritus
from inside your PC keyboard, try a Powerclean Airduster canister. The
dedicated Durable PC Clean Kit 5718 contains both Superclean and
Screenclean fluid, cleaning cloths, and keyboard swabs and cleaners that
reach between the keys to remove grime.

I was impressed when I tried out samples from the range. When I
up-ended my PC keyboard and tapped it, all manner of food crumbs and
dead skin particles dropped out, but the Powerclean Airduster dislodged
plenty more (it may help to use the soft brush of a vacuum cleaner
attachment to help remove any further debris). To clean the keys
themselves, I used neat Superclean with both swabs and the supplied
lint-free cloths, and it was surprising just how much grime ended up on
them, even though the keys looked superficially clean.

I found Superclean moist wipes perfect for cleaning and sanitising
mice (don't forget to wipe off the ingrained dirt found on the 'skids'
underneath), while anyone still using a ball mouse should open it up and
clean the ball itself, along with the rollers, which will keep your
mouse action smooth and sure. The moist wipes also worked very well on
telephones, rotary knobs, fader caps and music keyboards. I was
particularly shocked at how much dirt came off the last!

Desktop and laptop monitor screens may already have anti-reflective
or anti-static coatings, so don't be tempted to use domestic
glass-cleaning products that may strip these away. You can try a damp
clean cloth, but I found Durable's Screenclean not only easily removed
stubborn marks and left my screens clean and shiny with no smear marks,
but its anti-static properties really did seem to prevent further muck
accumulating. Overall I can highly recommend the range, which is widely
available at reasonable prices.

You
may have noticed web sites offering free automated Internet PC
checkups, which, once they have potentially discovered hundreds of
problems on your machine, then offer to sell you software to resolve
them. Unfortunately, the only ways to thoroughly scan your PC for
problems are to download and run a free utility or run Active X controls
and Javascript tests, both of which have the potential to do serious
damage to your computer. My advice is, therefore, to be extremely
careful and not to be tempted to run any such tests unless you're
absolutely sure the web site belongs to a bona fide developer that's been in business for some time. One I've had recommended to me by an SOS Forum user is PC Pitstop (http://pcpitstop.com), but in general I find it hard to recommend such regimes.

Once the outside of your PC and peripherals are clean, the next stage
for the desktop PC user is to remove one of the case side panels, to
inspect the inside for any build-up of dust and dirt. You'd be amazed at
how much muck can build up on heatsinks and cooling fans, and the
problem may be particularly bad if you smoke or burn joss sticks in the
studio (so don't do it!).

Unfortunately the build-up of dirt generally occurs so gradually that
you may be surprised when you eventually suffer a major calamity. Even a
thin layer of dust on heatsinks and cooling fans reduces their
effectiveness, so the operating temperatures of your CPU and other
components in your PC will gradually creep up, which in turn may
increase acoustic noise as fan speeds increase to counteract the higher
temperature.If
you can see this much caked-on dust inside your power supply, your PC
is probably running hotter than it should, and you should immediately
remove its side panel to give it a good vacuum.

Without a
good clean, more severe symptoms are eventually likely to appear,
including songs suddenly glitching due to high processor overheads
(because the CPU has automatically throttled its clock speed down in an
attempt to cool it), or unexpected shutdowns. In the worst case a PC
will boot up fine, run for just a few minutes, and then shut down and
refuse to boot up again until it has cooled down. The latter is often
what happens when the gaps between the heatsink 'fins' become completely
solid with dirt, or when the cooling fan is so clogged up that it can
no longer rotate.

The diligent can monitor their CPU, motherboard and hard-drive
temperatures, along with fan speeds, using suitable software utilities
(for more details, read 'The SOS Guide To Keeping Your PC Cool,
Quiet, and Stable'; see the 'Further Reading' box). However, a routine
internal inspection a couple of times a year makes more sense.

Unplug the PC from the mains and use a soft brush and a
vacuum-cleaner brush attachment to remove as much muck as you can find
from all the obvious places. These include the CPU fan and heatsink, any
case fans and any air filters (often placed before the intake fans at
the front of a PC). Don't forget to clean any other heatsinks you find
on the motherboard, or on expansion cards (modern graphics cards require
large heatsinks, as do some soundcards). For inaccessible fans, such as
those inside PC power supplies, moisten a cotton bud and use it to wipe
the fan blades, or blow an Airduster (described in the previous
section) into the PSU from the back of the PC to loosen the internal
dust, which should then get blown out by the fan.

Finally, for DIY desktop PCs, while you're inside the case, see if
it's possible to use cable wraps and ties to neaten up the wiring loom
connecting the PSU, motherboard, floppy, hard and optical drives. If you
can streamline the airflow by carefully forming the cables into neat
bundles, you may shave several degrees Centigrade off your CPU
temperature, and therefore be able to tun your cooling fans at slightly
lower speeds, for less noise in the studio. I heard of one PC user who,
after cleaning his machine and tidying up the wiring, measured
reductions of five degrees Centigrade for his CPU temperature, eight
degrees for his motherboard and a couple of degrees for his hard drives!

Laptops are often more difficult to open up for access to the air
vents and internal cooling fans. The procedure also varies considerably
from model to model, and may involve the removal of dozens of tiny
screws or struggling with lots of confusing clips. If you suspect
overheating due to an internal build-up of dust and dirt clogging your
laptop fans, and can safely get inside, clean the fans as above, then
use a blast of Airduster through the intake vents to dislodge any other
dust. It's best to do this outdoors, since you may get a sizeable cloud
of dust flying out.

If it's not obvious how to open up your laptop, one useful web site
linking to DIY instructions for many different models can be found at http://repair4laptop.org/notebook_fan.html.
Failing that, it may be safer to return the laptop to the manufacturer
or a local repair company for cleaning. If you're considering an
upgrade, such as having more RAM installed, asking the company to give
your laptop a good clean while it's already opened up may be
significantly cheaper.

For
quite some years now, the vast majority of hard drives have featured
SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology), which
provides feedback about performance parameters including error rates,
spin-up time and temperature. Although in older computers the extra
overhead slowed performance slightly and resulted in many people
disabling SMART monitoring in the BIOS, with modern PCs this overhead is
almost undetectable.

When any of the parameters mentioned above
changes significantly, it may indicate impending failure, so you might
as well take advantage of the information to find out how your drives
are performing and whether or not they are likely to fail in the near
future. I've previously mentioned HDD Health (www.panterasoft.com)
in PC Notes as a useful utility that sits in your system tray and
predicts impending failure of your drives, but another I've recently
discovered is HD Tune (www.hdtune.com).
This utility not only provides SMART health status on demand, but also
offers drive benchmark tests and a useful error-scan function that will
find defects (bad blocks) on your drives.

Hard drives are sealed to prevent dust getting inside, so physical
cleaning isn't necessary. However, the data they hold can be subject to
errors, so it's well worth doing some routine health checks using
Microsoft's CHKDSK utility (supplied with Windows NT, 2000, and
XP). This utility runs automatically when you boot up your computer
after it's had any problems shutting down, has crashed requiring a
reboot, or after a power cut. However, it's sensible to run CHKDSK
at other times to check for errors, and sort them out if any are found.
I suggest you do this routinely two or three times a year, as well as
immediately before defragmenting your drives (most defragmenters will
abort if drive errors are discovered).Running
CHKDSK a couple of times a year to scan and fix any hard drive errors
is a wise precaution that will help keep your PC running smoothly.

The easiest way to access CHKDSK is to right-click on a
drive partition in Windows Explorer and select the Properties option.
The dialogue that appears has a Tools page that includes an
error-checking option. You can use this to scan for possible errors, but
you can't, unfortunately, use the 'Automatically fix file system
errors' option while within Windows, since many system files will
already be open and therefore 'active'. An error message will pop up and
offer to instead run CHKDSK the next time you boot up before Windows starts, just as it does after a crash.

If, for some reason, you can't run CHKDSK on automatic
reboot, try running it from the Windows XP Recovery Console. First, boot
your PC from the Windows XP CD-ROM, and once the 'Welcome to Setup'
screen appears, press 'R' to launch the Recovery Console. If you have
multiple XP or 2000 installations, you'll next have to choose one to log
into.

With either of these alternatives you then need to type in the
appropriate text command. To scan for and fix hard drive errors you'll
need to type in 'chkdsk c: /f' and press return (change the 'C:'
parameter if you want to fix other partitions). There are also various
other CHKDSK options. For detailed descriptions, pay a visit to www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/chkdsk.mspx.

Once you've run CHKDSK and it's discovered no errors, it's
the ideal time to defragment your Windows drives. Defragmentation is
essentially the art of rearranging files on your hard drives to enhance
performance, and the pros and cons of doing this on audio drives is a
complex subject that I discussed in great depth back in SOS
June 2005 (see the 'Further Reading' box). However, there are nearly
always benefits to defragmenting Windows drives, such as both Windows
and its applications loading more quickly, and smoother general file
access.

When you delete files on your hard drive, all that happens is that
the entry pointing to the data is removed, leaving the data itself
intact. Although Windows will now happily save new data over the top of
the old, some of your deleted data may still be intact months or even
years after its deletion. Even reformatting your hard drive simply
removes its 'table of contents', and using suitable software tools you
could still recover much of it.

This can be a life-saver if you ever accidentally delete some data
you later want reinstated, but is extremely worrying if you have
personal information on your PC that you need to permanently erase, such
as client data, tax records, credit card numbers and web-surfing
history. A study by the University of Glamorgan on 105 hard drives
bought on Internet auction sites showed that data could be retrieved
from 92 of them, including passwords, National Insurance numbers, and
financial information such as sales receipts and profit and loss
reports.

Security experts say the only really successful way to ensure that
no-one can ever retrieve personal data from a discarded hard drive is to
drive a six-inch nail through it, crush it or incinerate it, but
utilities designed to securely wipe complete partitions and drives of
all their data by overwriting them a number of times with random
patterns of data do make the hacker's life a lot more difficult. So if
you want to permanently erase personal data from a hard drive, either
for routine personal security, before you sell it, or before you donate
your old PC to a local charity, it's well worth taking a little more
trouble to make sure your deletions are permanent. After all, identity
theft can be a costly business!If
you want to securely erase personal data on your PC, Eraser can deal
with both individual files and wiping supposedly 'unused' disk space on
your hard drives.

If you want to permanently delete the contents of an entire hard
drive, there are plenty of commercial products available, including the
$50 Acronis Drive Cleanser (www.acronis.com), the $30 Paragon Disk Wiper (www.disk-wiper.com), or the $40 VCom Secur Erase (www.v-com.com). One freeware alternative is DBAN (Darik's Boot And Nuke),
a self-contained boot floppy disk that you use to boot up the PC in
question. It will completely delete the entire contents of any hard
drive it can detect, making it ideal for use prior to disposal of a PC
but highly dangerous in the wrong hands.

Since a number of passes are normally required for secure deletion,
it may take some hours to completely wipe an entire hard drive using
such utilities, but they should prove extremely useful if you or your
company periodically disposes of old computers. If, on the other hand,
you need to securely delete specific files, or want to 'clean up' the
supposedly empty areas of your hard drives on a more routine basis, I
can thoroughly recommend the Eraser tool (www.heidi.ie/eraser).
It's free (although you can send a donation of a suggested 15 Euros to
support further development) and can be be run on demand to delete
specific files, folders or the empty areas of your drive, or be used
inside Windows Explorer as a right-click option instead of the Recycle
Bin or normal delete options. It also deals with 'cluster tips' (unused
areas at the end of the final cluster used for each saved file, which
may still contain data belonging to a file that previously occupied that
cluster).

Even if your hard drive is healthy, it may be storing a considerable
amount of junk data that you no longer need. Temporary Internet files,
those left behind during software installs or by applications with
multi-step Undo functions, old backup files and unwanted log files can
soon amount to many megabytes unless you take steps to eradicate them.
You may also prefer to remove evidence of your Internet surfing
activities, including cookies and URL history files of sites you've
visited.For routine clearing out of Windows 'junk' data, CCleaner is thorough and free!

Windows XP includes its own Disk Cleanup utility, but it's not very
thorough. There are also plenty of commercial utilities that do better,
but the one I regularly use and recommend is CCleaner (www.ccleaner.com),
which runs with Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, 2003, XP and Vista. It
cleans the Windows Recycle Bin, Recent Documents, temporary files and
log files, plus the temporary files, URL history and cookies from
Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera browsers.CCleaner also deletes temporary files belonging to many
third-party applications and offers optional secure deletion, with one,
three or seven passes, so you're certain of removing sensitive data for
good (although it doesn't eradicate the file names — Eraser is
still more thorough in this respect). It also has a basic Registry
cleaner (more on this shortly) and, best of all, it's totally free! The
only area that CCleaner doesn't cover is comprehensive scanning
for non-Windows junk files across all your drive partitions. If you
want a good clearout of these, Iomatic's $30 System Medic is
certainly versatile, offering a user-configurable list of junk-file
types, plus separately configurable lists of Inclusions and Exclusions
for specific folders, as well as a choice of which drives to include in
your searches. Such a utility can deal with many unwanted files
extremely quickly, but you have to be extremely careful what files you
include in its scans. It's very easy to accidentally delete all your
song backups, for instance!

Your Registry is another area where a good spring clean may reap
dividends, since it could potentially contain thousands of redundant
entries. Some Registry entries may point to non-existent files, and may
be deleted, or alternatively amended to point to the correct file, to
avoid crashes.
Although I'm against disabling Windows Services, since the measured
benefits are tiny but the risks of causing instability are great, my
experience with Registry-cleaning utilities is rather different. I use
several on a regular basis on my own PCs, removing rogue Registry
entries, followed by Registry compaction, either using a tool built into
some registry cleaners or the freeware NTREGOPT (www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt),
typically reducing the size of my Registry by around 10 percent. This
can only improve Windows performance, but all the utilities I use
provide backup options, so if necessary you can reverse any Registry
changes you make.
In my experience, every Registry cleaner finds a slightly different
collection of issues, so I tend to run each in turn. First up is
Microsoft's own RegClean (no longer supported by Microsoft, but still available as a free download at www.soft32.com/download_239.html).
It's by no means as thorough as most other tools, but can remove a
significant swathe of redundant data on its first run and a smaller
amount on subsequent runs.Utilities
such as Registry Medic and Registry Mechanic will keep your Windows
Registry free of redundant entries and references to non-existent files.

Next up is RegSeeker (www.hoverdesk.net/freeware.htm),
which, among its many other features, has a Clean function that always
finds lots of unused extensions and 'open with' references, as well as
references to non-existent files. Its excellent 'Find in Registry'
function is handy or stripping out all old soundcard references that
won't be removed by the standard uninstall routines.

The other two utilities I use and recommend are Iomatic's Registry Medic (www.iomatic.com) and PC Tools' Registry Mechanic (www.pctools.com). Registry Mechanic
offers a Smart Update function to ensure you're using the latest
version, a background monitor that you can use to spot unintended
changes to your Registry (although for optimum performance it's wiser to
disable this while running audio applications), an Optimise function
for applying various registry tweaks and a Registry 'compacting'
feature. Registry Medic has similar features.Registry Medic.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

I
have a small home setup based around a Yamaha AW4416 multitracker and a
Focusrite Penta compressor. Usually, I just record myself, but I've
agreed to record a demo for a female vocalist and her guitarist. The
problem is that the guitarist has requested that he plugs his guitar (an
electro-acoustic model) directly into my system. He wants it to sound
like an 'amplified acoustic guitar', not an 'acoustic guitar through a
mic'. Have you any idea what this might mean in practical terms? I don't
have a separate DI box, only an instrument input on the Penta, with
which I was planning to track the vocals. The artists have also said
they don't like reverb on the voice, and they don't like compression. It
seems that they're after a raw stripped-down sound, which I am tempted
to believe is only possible with higher-end gear and a really good
recording space. I have asked them to mention specific artists they want
to sound like, but I'm not familiar with any of their suggestions.James Pyot

Editor In Chief Paul White replies: There are a few
points to cover here, so let's start with the acoustic guitar. If this
has active pickups — that run on batteries — you can record it directly
into a line input on your multitracker. If it has a passive pickup of
some kind, then you'll need a high-impedance DI box, but these can cost
as little as £20, although the more expensive ones tend to handle the
low end with greater accuracy. The output of the pickups creates a
harder sound than that produced when miking and acoustic guitar, so you
shouldn't need to do much to the signal other than adding some
compression and reverb. And this is the point where you will have to don
your diplomat's hat.Hanging
duvets behind the vocalist will help to reduce the amount of unwanted
room ambience being recorded, enabling you to add some sympathetic
reverb at a later stage.

You said that your clients "don't like compression", but if you
explain to them that you only need a hint of compression to even up the
levels, they should be reassured. Using the same level of diplomacy,
tell them that, rather than adding reverb, you're going to introduce a
little simulated room ambience to make up for the fact that the guitar
has been DI'd. An early reflections preset or ambience setting should
create the right sense of space without adding overpowering reverb.

Now let's deal with the problem you have with tracking guitar and
vocals simultaneously. As your Penta is a preset-based stereo
compressor, with no option to split the stereo into two mono channels,
you won't be able to record the guitar and the vocal simultaneously,
even though it has separate inputs for instrument and microphone, as you
rightly point out. However, using a couple of channels on your AW4416,
you could record both tracks 'dry', then use the Penta to process them
separately at a later date. Doing this will give you more flexibility,
as you will be able to audition a number of different compression
settings while playing your comped tracks back. (Remember to keep a
backup copy of the original vocal!) Use automation to get the level as
even as possible, then insert a compressor that trims off only four or
five dBs from the peak levels, to take care of the final levelling. You
can tell them that this is a normal approach for non-rock music and it
will sound very natural. None of the people that they listen to will be
recorded with no compression or reverb, even if it sounds that way to
the untrained ear.

Finally, you mentioned your recording space posing possible problems.
If you find that it's not dry enough, just hang up duvets in a 'U'
shape around the back of the singer. Doing this should mop up most of
the room reflections. Again, when adding the reverb back to the sound
using software, pick a short, ambient type, to give the vocal some sense
of space, as recording in a dry room will rob it of any spatial
character. With any luck, these things should give you the raw sound
you're after. As long as you let your clients vet the effect you add,
they should be happy. Just try not to pick anything too obvious!

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Merging
Technologies' Onouris Long Distance Converter does exactly what it says
on the tin, allowing ADAT optical signals to be carried up to 1km!

I'm putting together a list of equipment for a venue. We
already have a PA (the amps are behind the stage), and the mixing
position is about 30 metres from the performance area, although the
cable run is more like 40m, as it goes around corners and over doorways.
Initially I wanted to use a digital desk, such as a second-hand Yamaha
01V96, and trail ADAT cables to the stage, where they would connect to a
bank of Behringer ADA8000s for A-D and D-A conversion. However, I
understand that ADAT's maximum cable length is 10 metres. What do you
suggest as an alternative? I would still like to keep the desk digital
and locate all the converters on the stage with the amps.

Simon Thomson

News Editor Chris Mayes-Wright replies: Well, there
are a few options available at a range of budgets. You're correct to
dismiss standard ADAT over those lengths, as you will lose timing
accuracy, resulting in audible clicks and pops. However, there are
products that allow you to 'bump up' the ADAT signal, using a converter
and a different type of cable. The standard ADAT protocol uses Plastic
Optical Fibre (POF) cables, which have a relatively high attenuation
rate (up to 1dB per metre in the case of poor-quality cables), whereas
glass optical fibre cables are much more efficient. Merging
Technologies' Onouris Long-distance Converter, pictured right, enables
cable runs up to 600 metres, although you may struggle to find a cable
that long! A set of two costs £495 (you need one at each end of the
glass-fibre cable), and a 50-metre cable will cost £180, but you'll need
two. So for a full system to carry your signal to the front of the
venue and back again, you're looking at just shy of £1000. And that's
only for eight channels...

For those on a more strict budget, it is possible to carry digital
signals over regular network hardware. Hear Technologies' Extreme
Extender system converts the optical signal to a network connection, and
back to optical again, with the 'ADAT In' and 'ADAT Out' models at each
end of a regular Cat-5e network cable with RJ45 connectors. They cost
$79 each (around £41 when we went to press) and will work with cable
lengths of over 150m. www.heartechnologies.com/extender/extreme_extender.htm has full details.

Of course, there are other format-conversion options that you could
consider. The one that springs to mind immediately is Multi-channel
Audio Digital Interface (MADI), which uses a single 75Ω coaxial cable to
carry multiple channels of audio up to 100 metres. The number of
channels transmittable down the MADI cable depends on the equipment and
sample rate, but the Audio Engineering Society's specification for MADI
(AES10) states that it can accommodate 56 channels of 24-bit, 48kHz
audio as standard. However, many manufacturers use spare bandwidth to
squeeze in an extra eight channels, making 64-channel transfer possible
at this rate (channel counts halve at double the sample rate). For the
Yamaha 01V96, you can purchase Audio Service's MY16 MADI64 expansion
card (www.audio-service.com),
which will give the mixer MADI capabilities. Of course, you'll need an
analogue-to-MADI converter to get your on-stage signals into and out of
the desk. These are available from the likes of RME, Euphonix and Otari,
but because they're designed for critical-listening applications, they
can be quite pricey, and you may not be able to justify spending the
money!

An alternative — which is probably the best, but definitely not the
cheapest — is to purchase one of a new breed of desks that feature a
control surface and 'mix engine' combination. Examples include Digico's
D1 and D5 (www.digico.org), Soundcraft's VI6 (www.soundcraftdigital.com), and Allen & Heath's iLive (www.ilive-digital.com).
These allow the mixer — usually a flashy affair with motorised faders
and touchscreen displays — to be located in the usual mix position,
while connections and conversion are handled by an on-stage unit. The
two modules are connected by a data cable, and the only audio connection
that's required is for the engineer's monitor mix.

This suggestion may very well be out of the question in terms of
budget, but it should give you an idea of what's available. If I was in
your situation, however, I would buy a multicore and an analogue desk!

Monday, March 20, 2017

I'm
taking the leap into recording drums. I already have a basic drum mic
kit, but I want to get some professional mics to make my recordings
sound better. I also need more mic preamps, and I'd like some advice on
how to process the recorded tracks to get the best sound. I currently
use a PC with Cubase, and I have a handful of plug-ins already, but could afford to buy some more.

Mike O'Reilly

Reviews Editor Matt Houghton replies: You've raised a
few different issues here, and it's a big enough subject to write a
book about (and there have been many!) so I'll try to pull out the
salient points.A
jazz kit miked up with three mics: although it can't be seen, the kick
is miked with Audio Technica's dual-capsule AT2500, while a Neumann
KM185 handles the snare drum. In this case, unusually, a Soundfield mic
acts as a 'virtual' stereo pair, located directly above the drum kit. An
alternative to the Soundfield in this case could have been a crossed
pair of hypercardioids, but it was chosen partly to free up two channels
on the multicore during this session, which was documented in SOS July
2003 and on-line at www.soundonsound.com/sos/ Jul03/articles/recordingjazz.asp.

Let's start with the mics. You mention you have a drum-mic kit; you
don't state the make or model but it should be broadly capable of doing
the job. However, as you implied, it might be worth thinking about
augmenting your collection as you progress, with mics such as the AKG
D112 or Audix D6 for the kick, an SM57 or Beyer M201 for the snare, and a
decent set of overheads such as, for example, AKG 451s or maybe the
recently released Rode NT55s (cheaper than the AKGs but still pretty
nice for the money, and handy as they've got a pad and a high-pass
filter). I'm not urging you to spend on these mics now, but you should
bear it in mind if you start to reach the limitations of your present
setup.

On to mic technique. Take the number of recording engineers in the
world, multiply it by the number of mic models, and you have an
indication of the many different ways to mike up a drum kit. Few people
agree on the best way to do it, but many agree that experimentations
with mic placement, types and angles is the key.

If you are after a classic jazz drum sound, you can easily get away
with three or four mics: one on the kick, one on the snare and a pair of
overheads. In the 'old days', where solid low-end wasn't as essential
as it is today, engineers would use a single room mic for a drum kit,
and that's if it had a designated mic at all.

On the other hand, a classic rock drum setup can use many mics,
possibly well into double figures: at least one on each piece of the kit
(probably two on the kick and on the snare), a pair of overheads,
perhaps a handful of room mics, and maybe something pointing down over
the drummer's head too, for example. With this approach you create lots
of options, and you can choose to leave tracks out if you have the
capacity to do so.

It is perfectly possible to mic things up and EQ and compress the
signal via the desk or insert plug-ins before things go into the
computer. This approach will save you a lot of time during the mix, as
you already know the different sounds will gel together, and you can
play back the recording to the drummer to check (s)he is happy with it.
You need to try different positions for the mics to get the right sound,
but be sure to check for phase issues when using multiple mics (for
example, on the top and bottom of the snare you'll probably need to flip
the polarity of one of them).

Even with a good sound, it is worth ensuring you achieve good
separation between the different elements of the kit: capture as much of
the direct sound as you can from each piece, and try to reject as much
of the other kit sounds as possible. Think about the polar patterns of
the mics you're using: the lobe at the back of cardioid and
hypercardioid mic patterns, for example, means that you need to be as
careful about where you point the back of the mic as you do the front
(the same reason why you see shotgun mics pointing down at the subject
on a film set rather than horizontally at them, where they would pick up
other sounds from the set).

Now let's consider the mic preamps. There are plenty of alternatives,
including some cheaper options. It's worth asking yourself if you need
great mic preamps on every channel. If you have a good signal on the
pair of overheads, the snare, hi-hat and kick, you might get away with
cheaper preamps elsewhere and free up money to invest in your four or
five 'good' pres or in your plug-ins. My own preferred setup is an RME
Fireface 800 with a Focusrite Octopre connected via ADAT. This works
well but may be over your budget (though it also gives you eight
outboard compressor/limiters!) and I've had decent enough results using a
Behringer ADA8000 ADAT interface in place of the Octopre, or using a
small Mackie VLZ Pro mixer as a rack of mic pres for the line inputs of
my Fireface. For more information on ADAT expansion, check out SOS July 2006's Q&A section, where we explored the possibilities in depth.

So what do you do when you've recorded everything? Again, opinions
are many and varied, but you'll need basic tools: a good EQ, a good
compressor and a nice reverb or two. I don't have the space to go into
detail, but as a rule, when processing it's important to check the sound
in the context of the whole kit and the wider mix: boosting, cutting
and otherwise mangling the kick might give you a great sound for the
kick alone, but it needs to work well with the other sounds, and with
the cross-bleeding original kick sound on the other channels.Session
drummer Gavin Harrison has to be prepared for all occasions. His setup
consists of up to a nine-piece kit, for which he uses a pair of Shure
SM57s on each snare (one on top, one below), Electrovoice ND408s on each
of his five toms, a Beyer M88 on the kick drum, and Schoeps CMC5s as
overheads. Check out his Readerzone feature in SOS October 1999, and
online at www.soundonsound.com/sos/ oct99/articles/readerzone.htm.

You'll also need to think about panning the tracks.
Traditionally, the kick, hi-hat and snare are pretty much central, with
the rest spread out either as the drummer or the audience sees the kit.
Bear in mind that very wide panning often sounds unrealistic.

I
tend not to compress things too much, athough setting up a drum buss
compressor and feeding bits of the whole kit to it can help glue things
together. The reverb is important, and unless you have a nice sounding
room to record in, you'll want to try to record things quite dry, with
little of the room sound in, and add ambience back in later with a
reverb. Convolution reverb is great for the whole kit, but you might
also want to consider sending the snare signal to a different reverb
(perhaps a plate), with a decay setting timed so that the tail of the
reverb dies off just before the next snare hit. Don't be scared to apply
an unnatural amount of reverb on the snare: as long as it sounds good
in the mix it's fine.

Next, what plug-ins should you buy? My
favourites for this are those for the UAD1 platform, particularly the
Pultec and Neve EQs and the Plate 140 reverb, but they may be a little
expensive for you if you don't already have the UAD1 card. Personally,
in your position, I'd be happy to make a start in Cubase using the built-in plug-ins and freeware such as Digital Fishphones' excellent Fish Fillets bundle and SIR's quite frankly amazing SIR convolution reverb. If you're on Cubase SX3 it may be worth paying for the upgrade — Cubase 4 's plug-ins are a significant step up from previous versions of Cubase. The new Channel EQ, Gate and Vintage Compressor
are nice enough to give you decent results and I'd certainly recommend
practising with these until you have a good feel for EQ'ing, gating and
compression. An excellent addition to Cubase 4 is the Envelope Follower,
which allows you to shape the envelope of different sounds — increasing
the snap from the attack portion of the kick drum, while lengthening
its 'boom', for example. But if you're still keen on splashing out, you
should have a look at the plug-in feature in our February issue!

Friday, March 17, 2017

Cubase's
Drum Editor allows you to edit velocity values for any individual
instrument within a drum kit MIDI part, without affecting the velocities
of the other instruments.

I'm using Cubase and have I just bought the BFD
plug in. I've programmed in all the MIDI notes for the drum part, but I
now want to draw in the velocity for each note by hand (hi-hats, kick,
snare, and so forth). When I go to draw, my actions affect the velocity
for every MIDI note on that beat, even if I have only selected one note.
I have been told that it possible to hold the Shift key in Pro Tools to draw in velocity values just for selected notes. Is there anything like that for Cubase?

SOS Forum post

SOS contributor Mike Senior replies: It sounds like you're trying to edit your drum parts using Cubase
's Key Editor, and this does indeed respond in the way you describe,
when you 'draw' in the Velocity Controller Lane with the pencil tool.
However, if you open up your drum part in the Drum Editor instead
(right-click the MIDI region and select Drum Editor from the shortcut
menu's MIDI submenu), the Velocity Controller Lane will only show
velocities for notes of one MIDI pitch at a time.
Assuming that you're wanting to tweak just the hi-hat dynamics, all
you have to do is select any hi-hat note in the main window using the
pointer tool. This brings up only hi-hat values in the Drum Editor's
Velocity Controller Lane, and you can then edit these with the drumstick
tool. I tried this in Cubase SX2 and it worked fine.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

I have just purchased a Macbook Pro and will be buying Ableton Live 6 soon. I have also bought a Korg Electribe MX1, with the intention of making house and techno music.Next on my list is an audio interface, a pair of monitors
and, if there's any change from £550, a controller. I've been looking at
the M-Audio Firewire 410 and Focusrite Saffire interfaces, and either
Tapco S5 or Fostex PM1 monitors. If I do have enough money for a
controller, it'll have to be quite small, as I have a bedroom setup with
limited space.

Ben Miller

News Editor Chris Mayes-Wright replies: I think
you're on the right lines with the products you've mentioned in your
question, but there are a few things to consider. Let's start with the
audio interface. As you're using a laptop, it would be handy for you to
get an audio interface that can be buss-powered, meaning that you don't
need a dedicated power supply to operate it and you can use your system
in a completely 'mobile' manner. Also, your Korg Electribe MX1 has four
mono audio outputs — a main stereo output and a pair of assignable
'individual' outputs — so another consideration would be to ensure that
you get an interface with at least four analogue inputs, so you can make
the most of your MX1's output capabilities.A rare case of less is more: Focusrite's Saffire LE has two more audio inputs than the higher-end model.

And here lies the first problem: despite both the M-Audio Firewire
410 and Focusrite Saffire having four inputs and 10 outputs, two of each
of those are used by the digital S/PDIF buss, and you'll need an
analogue-to-digital converter to get all four of your Electribe's
outputs into your computer. However, if you're not too bothered about
the on-board DSP that the Saffire boasts, the cheaper Saffire LE (which
has an RRP of £229, compared to £299 for the standard model) features
the extra pair of balanced line inputs you need, plus the stereo S/PDIF
and combination analogue inputs that its older brother has. The closest
thing M-Audio have is the Firewire 1814, which is good, but a little
over-specified for your purposes; besides, it would gobble up most of
your budget, so I'd recommend checking out products from other
manufacturers, such as Edirol and Emu, before committing yourself.

On to monitors then, and your initial thoughts about the Tapco S5s
and Fostex PM1s. It's almost impossible to recommend a pair of speakers
just from looking at the spec sheet, so the best advice I can give is to
visit your local retailer and try some out with reference material that
you're familiar with. Often, the retailer will have a listening room,
but if you can twist their arm enough to get some speakers on loan,
you're on to a winner. It may be the case that they'll only do this if
you're spending top-dollar on some speakers so, within your budget, I
think this option may be unrealistic, but it's always worth a try.

Considering that you'll probably have to spend around £250 on the
audio interface (don't forget some decent cables), there should still be
around £300 in your pocket. Monitors in this price bracket include the
two that you've mentioned, plus models from Tannoy — the Reveal Active
5A, costing under £230 per pair including VAT; Alesis, with their M1
Active 620 (£300 in the shops); KRK (the RP6, at £299); Tapco, whose S8s
cost £150 each; and Yamaha, whose MSP5s are discontinued but are still
available at the larger retailers and are a bargain at £240 per pair.

At this stage, if you've kept within the budgets, I'm afraid to say
that you'll be broke, with only a few pence left for some milk and bread
and maybe a trip to the launderette; certainly not a control surface.
But if you're in the market for one in the next few months, can I make
you aware of the Presonus Faderport, which should have landed in the UK
at the end of September. We haven't seen it in the flesh yet, but it
promises to be a useful little gadget. It's a neat desktop unit with one
motorised fader, transport control and a host of general
workflow-enhancing buttons. The best thing is that it will cost just
£159!

For house and techno, however, you'll probably want a swarming
expanse of knobs so you can tweak those filters like there's no
tomorrow. With this in mind, look out for Novation's Remote Zero SL, costing
£229 (it's reviewed in this November 2006 issue). It has 16 knobs,
eight faders and loads of assignable buttons, plus transport control and
an impressive LCD. Usefully for you, as an Ableton user, its Automap software has a template for Live,
so you can just plug it in to your Mac (it's class-compliant, too, so
no drivers are required) and start making tracks. On the lower end of
the scale, there are plenty of different models — from pad controllers
to more knobby units — available from the likes of Akai, Kenton, Korg,
M-Audio and Novation; visit their web sites for more information.

It's worth mentioning that, when buying your items you may be able to
get a bit of discount if you buy them simultaneously. Purchasing like
this often gives you a bit more leverage to haggle; think along the
lines of "I'll buy this as well, if you throw in some cables".

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Mindprint's Dual Tube Channel (DTC) remains the top choice of many professional users.

I recently purchased a Mindprint DTC and I've noticed that it
produces quite a lot of hiss. It is not so obvious to the ear at first
but after individually compressing instruments and playing them
together, it becomes quite nasty. Also, if you are monitoring the signal
from the DTC, you notice quite a large amount of noise on the analyser.
I purchased the 24-bit S/PDIF module to find the same happens there.
Whilst I was sold this as a mastering tool I am wondering if this is a
design flaw. I have read some good reviews (including yours from SOS
June 2002), but on a few web sites, similar problems are mentioned. I
have done all the regular troubleshooting, such as changing cables and
checking the power distribution of my system, and it all looks fine. I
am wondering why my DTC is so noisy and if it is supposed to be.

Chris Frost

Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: This is
tricky to answer without actually hearing the problem you are
complaining about and knowing how you are using the product. However,
the DTC remains a favourite processor of mine, and I've not had any
serious noise problems when I've used it, so I would suspect either an
operational problem or a faulty unit.

As it uses valves, it is possible that you have a faulty one, which
could lead to excessive noise. Changing the valves is not difficult and
replacements aren't expensive — but it might be worth getting the
product properly checked-over by a qualified technician, in case
anything more serious is wrong. Unlikely, but it's always best to get it
checked.

Perhaps the more likely problem is an operational one. Setting an
appropriate gain structure is important to optimise the signal levels
through the unit. The other thing that intrigues me is that you say: "It
is not so obvious to the ear at first but after individually
compressing instruments and playing them together, it becomes quite
nasty". Noise will always add and build in level, so processing
individual instruments with the DTC will always produce a noisier result
than simply processing the final mix. But I wonder if, in fact, you are
over-compressing the instruments.

Ideally, you could send a short extract of some affected material,
but it may be easier and quicker to get the unit checked-out or compared
with another unit to make sure all is working as it should.
I've always found Mindprint to be helpful in resolving issues like
this, so giving them a call might be a worthwhile step to take as well.
Mindprint +49 6851 9050.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Back
in September 2000, this Pentium III 700MHz PC from Millennium Music was
capable of running Windows 98SE, Cubase VST 3.7, quite a few plug-ins
and a soft synth or two... and a similar vintage PC can still do so
today.

Many of us feel compelled to regularly change our
PCs in line with the demands of the latest software. But, depending on
our requirements, an older PC may still be more than capable of doing a
great job, as PC Musician discovers this month.

As the demands of software on the computers that run it become
heavier and heavier, musicians can feel obliged to change their hardware
every couple of years or so, which means that we often have slightly
elderly PCs lying idle, despite the fact that they could well still be
suitable for music making, perhaps for a friend or relative. For other
musicians who haven't yet taken the plunge into running a computer
studio, an old PC that can still run certain music software might be
just the thing to get them into the swing. But what minimum hardware
specification do you really need to run audio and MIDI software? And can
you still track down older software that was written for more modest
hardware in the first place? Let's find out.

Reading the packaging for a selection of recent software releases
turned up typical minimum requirements of a Pentium/Athlon XP with a
clock speed of 1.4GHz and 512MB RAM. However, the recommended specs were
considerably higher — typically a Pentium or Athlon XP with a 3GHz
clock speed and 1GB of RAM.

This huge difference is partly because developers don't want to
dissuade owners of slower PCs from buying their products, but mainly
because minimum specs are generally regarded as applying to the product
used in isolation — ie. what an individual soft synth might
realistically need. In practice, very few people are likely to run just
one piece of software like this; most will need to run some sort of
sequencer, plus whatever soft synths, samplers and effect plug-ins they
need to complete their songs. I'm reasonably sure that the latter is
what determines the recommended specification.

Delving deeper into my chronological software pile, I soon discovered
soft synths released a couple of years ago whose packaging suggested a
minimum of Pentium III/Athlon 600MHz processors and 256MB of RAM, with
recommended specs of an 800MHz processor and 512MB of RAM. Looking back
even further, through the SOS review archives, I found that Steinberg's Wavelab
1.6 audio-editing package only needed a Pentium 133MHz processor in
1997. Of course, back in 1997 we were still excited at the prospect of
being able to run a single plug-in effect, and a reverb plug-in could
consume all your processing power in one gulp. Nowadays, many musicians
are creating entire songs in the virtual domain and may expect to run
dozens of everything. As I've said before many times in SOS, plug-ins and soft synths eat CPU for breakfast.

Until
a few years ago, PCs that were about to be thrown out were probably not
fit for further active duty, but nowadays most are still perfectly
usable for many general-purpose applications and even music making. If
you're strapped for cash and could make good use of an elderly PC,
letting friends and family know will often result in something suitable
turning up. Alternatively, most towns and cities have at least one
computer shop that offers low-cost 'second user' PCs with some sort of
guarantee. Such shops are also a good way to find out if there are any
computer clubs in your area (another good source of older computers).

If,
rather than looking for an older PC, you have one that you're about to
dispose of, don't just throw it into a skip. A far better solution is to
donate it to a good cause. You can contact an organisation that
recycles PCs (a good list in the UK can be found at www.itforcharities.co.uk/pcs.htm) or offer your hardware directly on the Donate A PC website (www.donateapc.org.uk).

Having said that, if you're recording acoustic/electric instruments
onto audio tracks, perhaps tweaking them with a few plug-ins, with maybe
some MIDI tracks outputting to a clutch of hardware MIDI synths and
keyboards, your PC specification needn't be very ambitious. Many
musicians build up multitrack songs primarily using audio tracks, and a
typical 7200rpm hard drive can manage to record and play back 60 or 70
24-bit/96kHz tracks before running out of steam, yet still require
comparatively little processing power. So those who need few plug-ins
(perhaps an EQ and compressor on each of a couple of dozen tracks) could
get away with an entry-level PC. It's difficult to provide an exact
specification, because this depends on what combination of plug-ins you
want to run, but a sensible baseline spec would be a 2001-vintage
Pentium III 1GHz or equivalent machine with perhaps 512MB of RAM. I
would team this with Windows XP and a couple of hard drives (one for
system duties and the other dedicated to audio storage).
If you're happy to run Windows 98SE instead of Windows XP (see the
'Which Operating System' box for advice on operating systems) you could
probably get away with an even older PC — I'd recommend a Pentium III
700MHz model with 256MB of RAM. You'd still be able to run a few soft
synths from the same period on such a machine, but modern ones would
probably struggle. However, if you wanted to add synths to your songs
using a modest PC like this, sequencing external hardware MIDI synths is
the way we all used to do it until a few years ago (before soft synths
became so capable), and MIDI consumes very little in the way of
resources, as we shall see later on.

Windows
XP has proved to be by far the best Microsoft operating system to date
for musicians — after all, it was the first to take multimedia
performance really seriously. By comparison, Windows 98SE required far
more tweaking to run audio applications successfully, although there are
still plenty of musicians running this operating system, simply because
once they'd finally got it tweaked to work well with audio
recording/playback they were loath to abandon a smoothly-running system.Although
tweaks such as finding the most suitable Virtual Memory settings were
far more critical to smooth audio recording and playback than the
equivalent Paging File settings in Windows XP, Windows 98SE nevertheless
remains the most suitable operating system for PCs that are slower than
a Pentium II 450MHz and have less than 256MB of RAM.

If
you've got an older PC, it may well already be running Windows 98, and
you may wonder whether it's worth upgrading to the more recent XP. I
think this depends on several factors. If the PC seems to be running
smoothly and the music software you propose to use is also compatible
with Windows 98, perhaps it's best to leave well alone, unless you run
into problems. However, do make sure you have the SE (Second Edition)
version, which has better USB and Firewire implementation and multimedia
performance.

I also don't think it's particularly wise to install
Windows XP on anything less than a Pentium II 450MHz machine or
equivalent with 256MB of RAM, but if you only require a PC to record and
play back audio tracks and don't need any soft synths, and either a
very few or no plug-ins, you may be able to get away with a much more
modest PC than this — in which case Windows 98SE is a more sensible
proposition.
Another reason for sticking with Windows 98SE is if
the PC in question already has a perfectly good soundcard installed,
which you wish to carry on using but which doesn't have Windows XP
drivers. Conversely, if you're about to buy a modern interface to
partner with your old PC you may have to install Windows XP, as many
manufacturers have abandoned writing Windows 98 drivers for modern audio
interfaces.

A completely different approach is to use the Linux
operating system, but although this is freely available (and we host a
dedicated Linux Music area among the SOS Forums), not everybody
has the time or the inclination to learn a completely new operating
system. Nevertheless, Linux has plenty of enthusiastic followers, so
I've provided several links elsewhere to SOS articles that can help get you up to speed.
Finally,
the earliest MIDI sequencers for the PC were DOS (Disk Operating
System) only, pre-dating the graphic interface of Microsoft's Windows
altogether. Because each DOS application took over the PC rather than
running alongside others, their timing could prove better than Windows
sequencers, where multiple threads jockey for position. However, apart
from abandoning the graphic interfaces that we're now so used to, using
DOS would require a suitable pre-Windows MIDI interface and some
knowledge of arcana such as I/O addresses, so DOS sequencing probably
remains the domain of the enthusiast or the determined.

Some musicians don't need to run any plug-ins or soft synths at all.
For instance, there are plenty of engineers recording live performances
who get the sounds right at source with careful mic positioning and
therefore don't even need to use EQ plug-ins. Many classical engineers
also avoid compression if at all possible. If you're only interested in
recording, playing back and mixing audio tracks (using your PC like a
glorified tape-recorder), a modern PC is an unnecessary luxury, and even
the slower hard drives of yesteryear should manage a few dozen
simultaneous tracks at 24-bit/96kHz, given a suitable audio interface.

Using Windows 98SE, I suggest a sensible baseline spec of a
1997-vintage Pentium 200MHz processor or equivalent, plus 64MB of RAM,
although a 300MHz CPU would probably be a more sensible option that
would enable you to run the odd few plug-ins when you needed to. If you
want to install Windows XP, a 1999-vintage Pentium II 450MHz machine or
equivalent with 256MB of RAM is more suitable, as XP can struggle on a
lesser PC.

We're now starting to consider computers that are up to nine years
old, so it's an ideal point in the proceedings to discuss another
dilemma: whether to reformat their hard drives and reinstall both
Windows and software from scratch, or just to leave well alone and
install whatever new music software we need.Some
audio interface manufacturers, including Lynx and Echo, still offer
Windows 98 drivers on their web site for older products such as the Lynx
One and Mia shown here, but others don't, so always check driver
availability before choosing an audio interface for an older PC.

Given
that PCs generally accumulate lots of software junk over the years,
with an older PC it's probably sensible to at least clear this out and
uninstall the applications that are no longer required. However, the
uninstall routines on Windows 98-vintage PCs were notoriously bad: some
left lots of detritus behind, while others were too enthusiastic and
deleted shared files that were still required by other applications, so
be careful. The most sensible approach is to first use an image-file
utility such as Drive Image, Norton Ghost or Acronis Backup
to capture an image of the current Windows partition before you start
deleting stuff. Then if you later find you've disposed of something you
needed after all, you won't have to panic.

If you're intending to use an older PC as an audio recorder, you may
be lucky enough to have one with a suitable audio interface already
installed. Although today's converters do generally sound better, you
could buy PCI soundcards with very decent audio quality from about 1997
onwards (my first was Echo's 20-bit Gina), and by about 2001 there were
quite a few budget models capable of high-quality 24-bit/96kHz audio
recording and playback. PCI soundcards predominated until about 2002,
when USB 1.1 devices began to appear, and then M-Audio's Firewire 410
was one of the first budget Firewire audio interfaces to appear, in late
2003.

If, on the other hand, this is a PC donated by a non-musical friend
or colleague, you may need to buy a suitable audio interface for it, and
if it's running Windows 98 you'll need to get one with compatible
drivers. A few older audio interfaces still being sold today have
Windows 98 drivers, although it's hardly surprising that nearly all
models introduced since about 2004 only support Windows XP, so bear this
in mind when choosing. However, you don't need to compromise on audio
quality — the excellent Lynx One soundcard (that I reviewed in SOS November 2000) still provides superb audio quality, yet has drivers available for Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000 and XP.

It will probably prove a lot easier to stick with PCI soundcard
models, as there were a lot of issues with some early motherboard USB
ports. Firewire support is even patchier than USB on older PCs: the
first PC I bought with motherboard Firewire support was in 2003, and
even today Firewire support isn't automatically included on
motherboards. However, you can buy Firewire-to-PCI adaptor cards (see
this month's PC Notes for a more detailed discussion on this topic) to
add Firewire support, and if the adaptor card in question has Windows 98
drivers you can, of course, use it on an older PC running this
operating system.

If you have an old soundcard without its Windows 98 drivers (a common
situation with vintage eBay purchases), don't assume you can rely on
the generic driver-download web sites (such as www.driverguide.com, www.windrivers.com, and www.driverzone.com):
you'll find very few drivers there for quality soundcards and
interfaces. Some audio interface manufacturers maintain archives, but
not all.

All of which brings us neatly back to the reformat/leave alone
debate. If you're considering reformatting the hard drive and
reinstalling Windows 98SE from scratch, you should first make sure that
you've either got a copy of the interface drivers, or that they are
still available from the manufacturer's web site, otherwise you might
find yourself in a pickle.

When is it still worth upgrading an old PC, and when should you call it a day?
Back
in 1996 I recommended a minimum of a 66MHz 486DX2 processor and 16MB of
RAM to successfully run Windows 95, but soundcards at that time only
supported 16-bit audio formats, while audio quality was nowhere near
that of the 16-bit DAT recorders of the same period. Moreover, although
the final version of Windows 95 added support for USB peripherals, there
were few devices around at the time to take advantage of it.

So
unless you're putting together a machine purely for the sake of
nostalgia, I strongly recommend you work with Microsoft's Windows 98SE
operating system, which had far more robust USB support, or the more
recent Windows XP. This determines the cut-off point beyond which it
simply isn't worth trying to resurrect an old PC.

In 1998, when
Windows 98 was first released, Microsoft quoted a minimum spec of a
486DX 66MHz processor and 16MB of RAM, but this was extremely
optimistic. A far more realistic spec, in my opinion, is any Pentium
200MHz processor or equivalent, plus 32MB of RAM. This, for me, is the
minimum spec a PC needs to be at all useful to the musician.

If you've got a collection of hardware MIDI synths and keyboards and
want to run a MIDI-only sequencer with no audio recording facilities,
you can get away with a very low-spec PC. After all, a few musicians are
still running Atari ST computers with an 8MHz clock speed at the heart
of some complex hardware MIDI setups!

However, you have to be careful. Back in 1996, I upgraded from one version of Cubase Score,
which had run happily on my the 486DX33 (33MHz) PC I was using, to one
that added basic stereo audio support, and found that my PC almost
ground to a halt, even when I was only using the Cubase MIDI
facilities. This was because the software was optimised in a very
different way to achieve smooth audio recording and playback. Later on,
when Steinberg released Cubase VST 3.55, they added a 'Disable
Audio Engine' feature for this reason, to suit those musicians who still
relied totally on MIDI but who wanted to upgrade to the latest version
of their favourite application.

So although MIDI itself takes few resources, and MIDI-only software
likewise, don't assume you can use a modern MIDI + Audio sequencer on an
old PC and just ignore the audio parts. The perfect solution might be
to track down someone who still has an early version of your favourite
sequencer with minimal audio support, or (possibly even better) an
elderly MIDI-only version. It's a shame developers don't keep a few of
these as freebies on their own web sites, but of course they much prefer
that we buy the latest and greatest versions!

If
you have an elderly PC that you're about to press into service, you
don't, of course, have to use it in isolation — it can instead be run
alongside a newer and faster model, although you will have to keep an
eye on overall acoustic noise levels in your studio. Here are some
suggestions on how you could use a second computer, starting with
scenarios that require a fairly powerful model and ending up with those
that will suit more modest machines:

Use it as a stand-alone
soft synth PC, supporting the main music PC, connected either by MIDI,
audio, or network. As discussed in the main text, the quoted minimum
requirements for a soft synth tend to be what's required for the synth
alone, so you can use these as a guideline to how powerful your slave PC
needs to be to run a particular model. If the synths you want to run
are only available as VST Instruments you'll also need a simple
application to host them, such as Xlutop's Chainer (www.xlutop.com), Brainspawn's Forte (www.brainspawn.com), or Steinberg's V-Stack (www.steinberg.de).
If both PCs already have a MIDI and Audio interface, the easiest way to
connect the two is via a MIDI cable, or you could network them. For
more information on networking music PCs, look no further than our
feature in SOS August 2005 (www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug05/articles/pcmusician.htm).

Use it as a stand-alone software sampler running an application such as Tascam's Gigastudio, Steinberg's HALion or NI's Kontakt.
In this role, the emphasis tends to be more on hard drive streaming of
audio rather than the performance of the CPU, so older and slower PCs
will still cut the mustard as long as they have a reasonably large and
fast hard drive and a reasonable amount of RAM. This is especially true
if you ferry the audio back to the main PC via a network or ADAT
connection to add plug-in effects, rather than doing it in situ.
This approach also neatly bypasses the inevitable conflicts of
attempting to run both sequencer and stand-alone software sampler on the
same machine.

Use it to safely connect to the Internet, and for
word processing, accounts, downloads, and so on, connected to your main
music PC via a network cable. If you don't have the main music PC
powered up when you're on-line with the Internet one, there's no way any
virus or other nasty can infect it, and when you're no longer on-line
you can power up and transfer music updates.

Use it as a way of
storing backup files from your main PC. This approach is always safer
than keeping backups on a different hard drive on the same computer, and
is also an ideal scenario if you want to try Wireless (WiFi)
networking, since you can then store the backup machine in another room,
the garage, or even the loft, where its noise contribution won't
matter. It doesn't need to be a powerful machine, either, just as long
as it has enough hard drive space for your needs. The only thing to bear
in mind is that, like all mechanical devices, hard drives can
eventually wear out. However, fitting a new 200GB drive will cost under
£50.

If you're about to equip an elderly PC with music software, the
obvious first port of call is musical friends who may still have old
versions of their existing sequencer that they can pass on, along with
any dongles and update files. I can't see that developers can grumble
about this if the products in question have been long out of commercial
production. There are also plenty of entry-level sequencers bundled with
audio interfaces that might do the job for you.

Another approach is to look at entry-level versions of flagship sequencers such as Cubase, Sonar and so on — although, as I often remind people in the pages of SOS,
even these are surprisingly powerful for the price, and therefore
benefit from a reasonably fast PC. For instance, a 1.4GHz Pentium/Athlon
processor and 512MB is recommended for Cakewalk's Sonar Home Studio,
but you ought to be able to get away with a Pentium III 1GHz and 256MB
of RAM if you don't require a lot of audio plug-ins. For Cubase SE,
Steinberg recommend a Pentium/Athlon 2.8GHz machine with 512MB of RAM,
but the software will run on 800MHz processors and 384MB of RAM at a
push.You
can still buy MIDI-only software for the PC, such as Voyetra's Record
Producer MIDI (shown here) which only requires a Pentium II 233MHz
processor and 64MB of RAM when running under Windows 98SE.

Digidesign's Pro Tools Free
for Windows 98/ME runs on Pentium III-vintage machines, while some
musicians have also reported success with Pentium II 300MHz machines —
and, unlike the rest of the Pro Tools range, this software runs
with any audio hardware. Sadly, it's no longer available at the
Digidesign web site as a free download, but if you can find someone who
downloaded it, it's worth getting a copy from them, since the software
supports eight audio channels and 48 MIDI channels, includes EQ,
compression and limiter plug-ins, and of course provides a version of
the famous Pro Tools interface.

Mackie's Tracktion 2 specifies a Pentium III, 256MB of RAM
and Windows 2000/XP, and has proved very popular for its ease of use and
clear, single-screen interface, while Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net) is a free audio editor/recorder that I reviewed in SOS
July 2004. As well as being freeware, it can also run on Windows 98, ME
and 2000, as well as XP. Even better, for our purposes, the minimum
spec is an extremely modest 300MHz processor and 64MB of RAM. However,
it doesn't support the ASIO driver format, so isn't suitable if you need
low latency. Nevertheless, for those only requiring audio recording and
playback, it could be just the job.

Other modest audio applications include the $45 Goldwave and $55 Multisequence (www.goldwave.com) and Tracker loop-sequencing software (which I covered in my PC Music Freeware feature — see the 'Further Reading' box). In his SOS July 2003 review of Making Waves Studio (www.makingwavesaudio.com), Mike Bryant reported that a Pentium I with 16MB RAM would suffice, yet MW Studio provides a lot of features for its £80 download price, and the MW Audio version, with simpler stereo audio but 1000 MIDI track support, costs only £20.

I also highlighted plenty of other more modest applications in my SOS
April 2005 feature, 'Easier Alternatives To Flagship Music Apps' (see
the 'Further Reading' box). MIDI-only software can still be bought if
you search for it: For example, Voyetra's Record Producer MIDI (www.voyetra.com)
supports up to 1000 MIDI tracks, SMPTE for syncing to other gear and
lots of MIDI-based effects, for just $24.95. It only requires a 233MHz
Pentium II processor and 64MB of RAM, or a 400MHz Pentium and 128MB RAM
if running under Windows XP. So please don't take your old computer to
the skip when it's been replaced by a shinier, faster model — one way or
another, there's definitely life in the old dog yet!

Windows 98 needs rather more tweaks than XP
to make it run smoothly with audio applications. An introduction to
'Getting Started With Windows 95/98 Music Applications', including
tweaking advice, can be found in SOS July 2000 (www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul00/articles/pcmusician.htm).